Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Bombay High Court

Dr. Santosh Chandrashehar Shetty vs Mrs. Ameeta Santosh Shetty on 18 March, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 (NOC) 945 (BOM.), AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 210

Author: Sarang V. Kotwal

Bench: K.K.Tated, Sarang V. Kotwal

Basavraj
G. Patil
Digitally signed by
Basavraj G. Patil
                                                                     242.19-cam.odt
Date: 2020.03.19
11:53:48 +0530

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

                                           Civil Application No.242/2019
                                                          in
                                          Family Court Appeal No.113/2014


                      Dr. Santosh Shetty                          ..... Applicant

                             Vs.

                      Mrs. Ameeta Shetty                          ..... Respondent


                      Mr. Rajiv Chavan, Senior Advocate a/w. Smt. Priyanka
                      Chavan and Mr. Atul Mankame I/b. Mahesh Thorat for the
                      Applicant
                      Mrs. Ameeta Shetty, Respondent in person.


                                             CORAM:      K.K.TATED &
                                                         SARANG V. KOTWAL,JJ.
                                             DATE    :   18 th MARCH, 2020


                      PC :

                      1      Heard. By this application the Applicant husband is

seeking an order of injunction restraining the Respondent from entering the place of employment of the Applicant and from attempting to communicate with the Applicant and with the hospital authorities, patients and other relatives of the Applicant in any manner, whatsoever, including personal, oral or written or electronic or telephonic contact.

2 It is to be noted that at the time of arguing the Family Court Appeal on merits, which was finally heard and Basavraj G. Patil 1/2 242.19-cam.odt disposed of by this court vide judgment of even date, this application was not argued either by the Applicant nor the Respondent in-person. Therefore, there is no question of passing any order on this Civil Application. Hence, the Civil Application stands dismissed as not argued before this court.

3 No order as to costs.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (K.K.TATED,J) Basavraj G. Patil 2/2